Forum:CT:Sources date proposal

Forums > Consensus track archive > CT:Sources date proposal
This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made in the Senate Hall or new Consensus Track pages rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record.
The result of the debate was Oppose.

This CT proposes to clarify the requirements of the "Sources" section of articles. It's similar to, but less complicated than, a prior CT for the "Appearances" section.

The proposal

This proposal is to replace one bullet point of the Layout Guide to be clearer. Specifically, replace

  • The Sources list is ordered chronologically by real-world publication date
with
  • The Sources list is ordered chronologically by real-world publication date, with older sources listed before newer ones.

Voting

Support

  1. A simple change which does no harm and resolves some potential confusion. -- YakovChaimTzvi ChissAscendancyCanonSymbol (talk) 19:16, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
  2. Hingsight, yes Chronological Events in a list are usually oldest first but I still think it best to clarify. NBDani (talk) 20:10, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. In short, I do not believe that this is necessary. Chronological order means oldest to newest, so adding this wording does not change the meaning of our current policy, and while I am happy to adjust policy when it is unclear, I do not think that this qualifies as such an instance. VergenceScatter (talk) 21:25, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
  2. Chronological order is "Chronological order is listing, describing, or discussing when events happened as they relate to time. It is like looking at a timeline to view what occurred first and what happened after that.". It requires the oldest is listed first. We would say "Reverse chronological order" to place newer newest releases first. As such this proposal isnt necessary Manoof (he/him/his) (talk) 21:56, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
  3. Per Vergence and Manoof. IFYLOFD (Talk) 03:06, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
  4. Per Manoof, if the intention had been to do reverse chronological order, it would have been specified. Imperators II(Talk) 07:50, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
  5. I've already made my stance on this clear in Discord, which is that this is really unnecessary, and is completely redundant in the face of the dictionary definition of "chronological." UberSoldat93 ClanMudhornSignet-Redemption (talk) 07:57, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
  6. Per Vergence and Manoof. LucaRoR CIS roundel (Talk) 14:26, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
  7. Nothing more to add Lewisr (talk) 14:28, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
  8. Same as Shay, I made my stance on this matter quite clear on the Discord server. This CT is highly unnecessary as it is already clearly defined in the LG. Erebus Chronus (Talk) 14:56, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
  9. Supreme Emperor Holocomm 14:59, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
  10. It's a well-intentioned attempt to clarify things, but per above, this line of policy doesn't need clarification. As I said on Discord, in the rare instance that someone does arrange things in reverse order, other editors can simply correct that and explain the current practice to that user. OOM 224 16:42, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
  11. Per above. 1358 (Talk) 17:05, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
  12. JediMasterMacaroni(Talk) 02:51, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
  13. Per OOM Fan26 (Talk) 03:35, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
  14. DarthRuiz30 (talk) 07:34, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
  15. Wok142 (talk) 05:38, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
  16. Redundancy detected. SilverSunbird (talk) 05:54, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
  17. --Vitus InfinitusTalk 21:26, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
  18. MasterFredCommerce Guild(talk) 21:34, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
  19. Ayrehead02 (talk) 07:58, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
  20. Tommy-Macaroni 18:52, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
  21. Green Tentacle (Talk) 09:53, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
  22. Immi Thrax RainbowRebellion2 (talk) 11:54, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
  23. JRT2010 (talk) 11:59, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
  24. starting with the earliest and following the order in which they occurred. The definition of chronological seems pretty blatantly clear to me. - JMAS Jolly Trooper Hey, it's me! 12:38, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Discussion